Jeffrey Gibson

Please note that what Pete quotes from is Oration 4, not Oration 1. The first of Gregory's two invectives against Julian is not known as, nor has it ever been designated or referred to by, Patristics scholars and/or Classicists (some of whom are Patristic scholars) or editors and translators of the works of Gregory, Oration 1.. Rather it universsally called Contra Julianum imperatorem 1 (orationem 4)

That Pete calls it Oration 1 -- presumably because the translation in which he found the text uses the word "First" in its title for Oration 4 -- which by the way is there entitled [Gregory's] First invective against Julian the Emperor -- is further testimony to Pete's demonstrable and demonstrated inability to read texts correctly and/or to cite sources properly.

Jeffrey

gentleexit

This is a great topic in itself. Plotinus wrote against the gnostics (Enneads, 3 different times?). Footnotes usually interpret this as attacking "a branch of Christians" but that is projection, part of seeing everything not explicitly "pagan" as a form of Christianity, as early evidence for a large and significant Church.

Some of your individual observations have validity Pete but the "Constantine the Boss" theory (Arius non Christian, Constantine capable or inclined to fabricate so extensively, on and on) is a complete fantasy that ignores the record of that time and the nature of Rome.

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey and the the other innumerable Patristics scholars and/or Classicists (some of whom are Patristic scholars) or editors and translators of the works of Gregory, Oration 1.. , etc, readers, other respondents, reporters, camera-crews and support groups,

I appear to have written 1 when I should have written 4. O me! O my! It must be a strange time of the year. First spin throws a Vole and now Jeffrey throws a number (in Greek of course).

My dear detractors, please address the evidence:

You asked for the evidence by which I have claimed that Julian legislated that "Galilaeans" should be the legal name of the christians. It seems reasonably clear this is what he did, from the above.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

Projectionism appears to be the only vehicle by which christian evidence is solicited from the prenicene epoch. When we have sufficient objectivity for one moment to examine the prenicene epoch without the glasses of christian historical story paradigm alot more will make sense. The glasses of the christians were fashioned from fourth century technology (IMO).

The C14 points towards Constantine.

Best wishes


Pete

J-D

I never understood why thought this was important. If Julian legislated that Christians be called Galilaeans, that does not help to refute the hypothesis that Christianity pre-dated Constantine. You still have no basis for rejecting that hypothesis.

mountainman

Dear J-D,

Julian appears to have opened his three books against the christians with the statement that he was convinced that the fabrication of the christians was a fiction of men composed by wickedness. That is rather a bold claim, dont you think, for Cyril to quote verbatim? Moreover Julian says that it is expedient for him to write to all mankind against the christians.

The basis for the rejection of that hypothesis is the great silence of the archaeological evidence for the "canon of christianity and/or its followers/preservers" before the rise of Constantine. There is an explosion of totally unambiguous evidence from his time onwards, but nothing but ambiguities and utter frauds out of the prenicene epoch.

To me this is the signature of a boundary event. The turbulence of the event is to be measured with the Arian controversy.

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

It is not in dispute that Julian thought Christianity was false. Everybody agrees that Julian disbelieved in Christianity. That is not evidence that Julian thought it was specifically a Constantinian fabrication.

I believe that Christianity is false, but that does not logically entail accepting your hypothesis.Again, it is not in dispute that we are looking at a boundary event. Everybody agrees that it was a boundary event. Everybody agrees that Constantine gave Christianity an official sanction which it had not previously had. That does not logically entail accepting your hypothesis that Christianity did not exist at all before Constantine.

mountainman

Dear J-D,

Which other historical figure bound and published the "Chrestos News"?

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

I have no idea what you're talking about. Why are you so wantonly obscure? If you have a case to make, why not just make it instead of playing games with cryptic rhetorical questions?